Pensions: Don’t call it ‘reform’

Backers of ballot measures to cut government workers’ retirement benefits are free to refer to the proposals as “pension reform” in their ballot arguments and campaign ads. But a state appeals court says it’s a loaded term that doesn’t belong in the measure’s title and description presented to the voters.

Those need to be impartial, and the word “reform” implies that something is wrong and needs fixing, the court said.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal ordered San Jose officials on Tuesday to change the title of Measure B on the June 5 ballot from “Pension Reform” to “Pension Modification” and make a similar change in the one-sentence description of the measure’s content. In another unusual step, the court also told the city to remove references to the police patrols, fire stations and other “essential services” that would supposedly be preserved if pensions were reduced.

The official description of a ballot measure “cannot favor a particular partisan position,” said Justice Franklin Elia in the 3-0 ruling. In this case, he said, the word “reform” signifies “a removal of defects or wrongs,” and is defined by various dictionaries as referring to a cleanup of abuses.

Measure B, backed by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, was placed on the ballot by the City Council last month. It would reduce pensions for future city employees, require current employees to choose between higher contributions to the pension plan or lower future benefits, and allow the city to suspend cost-of-living increases in benefits for up to five years during fiscal emergencies.

In its official ballot summary of the measure, the City Council said voters were being asked to decide whether to “reform” retirement benefits in order to “protect essential services, including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations, libraries, community centers, streets and parks.” Supporters said it was an accurate description of the purpose and effects of Measure B, but the court said the language was one-sided and belonged in the ballot arguments, not the neutral summary.

Thomas Willis, a lawyer for city workers and retirees who challenged the ballot language, said they were pleased with the ruling. “The ballot can’t be used for campaign advertisements,” he said.

Linda Ross, a lawyer for the city, said there was “nothing partisan” in the ballot wording, but the ruling shouldn’t pose problems. “Voters are going to review this and evaluate it based on the language of the measure itself,” she said.